Bonilla v. Clay

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed multiple civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and the handling of his other cases in state and federal court.

The opinion states that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his imprisonment in the same court, with appointed counsel, and was also represented by counsel in state-court proceedings concerning that petition.

Reasoning

The court addressed Bonilla’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has been disqualified from that status may proceed without paying only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court found that Bonilla’s allegations did not show such danger, so he could not proceed without paying the fees.

The court further held that, even if an application to proceed without paying had been granted, the lawsuits would still be barred under the legal doctrines identified in Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion also noted Bonilla’s extensive history of filing similar cases.

The court rejected the suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion states that Bonilla named the judge as a defendant in four of the cases but made no specific allegations against the judge in those cases.

Ruling and disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits in the closed cases.